activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Strachan" <james.strac...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: ActiveMQ svn directory organization question
Date Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:37:11 GMT
Yeah - and backporting atomic commits across multiple modules could
get hairy too :)

On 7/27/06, Sanjiv Jivan <sanjiv.jivan@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, I agree with your reasoning. Also a separate trunk per module also
> makes it more work to have maven work with defaults and even checked in IDEA
> project files will also break when, say, we're working with a trunk module
> and another branch module.
>
> On 7/27/06, James Strachan <james.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Good question. Given how interdependent many of the modules are, its
> > failrly unlikely we'd want to branch only one of the modules I guess.
> > Its certainly much simpler to branch the entire maven build in one go,
> > then you can for example change the super-pom in the branch.
> >
> >
> > On 7/27/06, Sanjiv Jivan <sanjiv.jivan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Off topic, but in looking at the Active MQ SVN directory structure with
> > the
> > > multiple modules and all, I was wondering what the pro's on con's are in
> > > 1) using one top level "trunk" and "branch" directory with all the
> > modules
> > > going under "trunk" versus
> > > 2) having each module have its own  "trunk" and "branck" sub directory
> > as
> > > described here :
> > >
> > http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn-book.html#svn.branchmerge.using
> > >
> > > What criteria did Active MQ use to go with approach 1). Was it because
> > the
> > > maven directory layout is an issue with approach 2?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Sanjiv
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > James
> > -------
> > http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
> >
>
>


-- 

James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/

Mime
View raw message